Aereo subscribers pay up to $12 a month for service that allows them to watch and record local broadcast TV stations on laptops and mobile devices. Aereo gets around having to pay local stations by renting subscribers a tiny individual antenna which receives local signals. Consumers can record and watch shows via a cloud-based video recorder service.
“The broadcasters are asking the Court to deny consumers the ability to use the cloud to access a more modern-day television antenna and DVR,” said Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia in a statement. “They are asking the Court to confine consumers to outdated equipment and limit their access to lawful technology in order to protect a legacy business model, the success of which is built on eliminating consumer choice and competition in the marketplace.”
Sums up my thoughts pretty well.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I would imagine Comcast and the other big cable companies are helping Aereo out with this in any way they can (if they aren't behind it to begin with). Local broadcast companies have always been a thorn in the side of cable companies. Their subscribers pretty much demand that they carry their local channels, but the cable companies can't insert their own commercials into the broadcast. Plus they have to pay to broadcast them.
So this will be interesting to watch. It would appear Disney, NBC and CBS pay more to Obama and the Dems than Comcast since the Justice Department sided with them.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
The opinion in American Broadcasting Companies Inc. v. Aereo was written by Justice Stephen Breyer. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy and the three liberal justices. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
Wait, what was that? The three righties dissented?
Internet-service providers are a prime example. When one user sends data to another, the provider’s equipment facilitates the transfer automatically. Does that mean that the provider is directly liable when the transmission happens to result in the “reproduc[tion],” §106(1), of a copyrighted work? It does not. The provider’s system is “totally indifferent to the material’s content,” whereas courts require “some aspect of volition” directed at the copyrighted material before direct liability may be imposed.
Sounds like "just because something can be used to facilitate copyright violation doesn't mean it will be used as such, so you can't kill the service provider instead of the end-user." Six other justices disagreed. Fucking hell.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Can't believe I find myself agreeing with Scalia and Thomas.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."